G.R. No. 183871 - Rubrico vs. Macapagal-Arroyo

Case Summary (G.R. No. 183871)

Procedural History

Petition for Writ of Amparo filed with the Supreme Court (Oct. 25, 2007).
Ex parte writ issued; case referred to CA for summary hearing.
CA granted service on all impleaded respondents, dropped the President, denied TPO, denied service by publication, and on July 31, 2008 issued a partial judgment dismissing petition as to Gen. Esperon, P/Dir.Gen. Razon, Roquero, Gomez, and the Ombudsman, but directed AFP and PNP heads to pursue investigations and report.
Petitioners filed Rule 45 petition for review to the Supreme Court.

Issues

Whether the President may be sued during incumbency under the 1987 Constitution.
Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition as to AFP and PNP Chiefs, certain police officers, and the Ombudsman.
Whether substantial evidence supports government involvement or a threat to petitioners’ rights thereby justifying amparo relief.

Presidential Immunity

Under existing jurisprudence (David v. Macapagal-Arroyo), the President enjoys immunity from suit during incumbency despite no express constitutional provision; this preserves the dignity and uninterrupted function of the Chief Executive. Petitioners alleged no specific presidential act or omission violating their rights. Dismissal as to the President is affirmed.

Scope of Amparo and Command Responsibility

The writ of amparo provides expeditious relief against violations or threats to the rights to life, liberty, and security. It is procedural and does not determine criminal guilt or administrative liability; such matters require full proceedings under substantive law.
Although “command responsibility” is a principle of international law, it establishes criminal or administrative liability for superiors whose subordinates commit crimes. Its application lies beyond the scope of amparo, which may only preliminarily determine who bears responsibility in the sense of guiding protective and investigative measures, not to fix liability.

Evidence and Government Involvement

Petitioners failed to present substantial evidence linking the alleged abductors to the AFP or PNP:

PAF and PNP records did not list the named individuals as service members.
Petitioners did not confirm that “Darwin Reyes/Sy” in PNP records was Maj. Sy alleged by them.
Lourdes’s own testimony suggested uncertainty regarding the abductors’ identities.

Under Amparo Rule Sec. 17–18, allegations must be proven by substantial evidence. Here, the evidence was insufficient; the burden never shifted to respondents.

Police and Ombudsman Investigations

Gen. Esperon and P/Dir.Gen. Razon each ordered investigations and parallel actions through their commands and the Ombudsman. P/Supt. Roquero and P/Insp. Gomez conducted preliminary fact-finding but reported lack of cooperation from petitioners.
The Ombudsman docketed criminal (kidnapping, arbitrary detention) and administrative (gross abuse of authority, grave misconduct) cases and initiated preliminary investigations. No evidence showed inaction or bad faith by the Ombudsman.

Relational Remedies and Remaining Gaps

Although investigations were launched, critical gaps remain:

Failure to identify and locate the alleged perpetrators.
Lack of coordination among AFP, PNP, and Ombudsman inquiries.
No final conclusions or recommendations.

Final Disposition

President Arroyo is dropped from the petition.
Petition is dismissed as to Gen. Esperon, P/Dir.Gen. Razon, Roquero, Gomez, and the Ombudsman for failure to establish amparo-worthy claims against them.
To afford effective relief, the Court directs the incumbent AFP Chief of Staff and PNP Director-General (and their successors) to:
a.

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 183871)

Facts of the Case

On April 3, 2007 armed men of the 301st Air Intelligence and Security Squadron (AISS) abducted Lourdes D. Rubrico from a Lenten pabasa in Bagong Bayan, Dasmariñas, Cavite, and detained her at Fernando Air Base without charges.
During a week of interrogation by hooded individuals, Lourdes suffered verbal abuse and mental harassment.
She was released only after signing a statement agreeing to become a “military asset,” then continued to be tailed on at least two occasions in Cavite and Pasay.
While Lourdes was missing, P/Sr. Insp. Arsenio Gomez sent text messages to her daughter Mary Joy Carbonel, invited her to beaches, inquired about Karapatan, yet failed to investigate Lourdes’ disappearance.
One week after Lourdes’ release, daughter Jean R. Apruebo felt compelled to leave home because unidentified men were watching their house.
Lourdes filed criminal (kidnapping and arbitrary detention) and administrative (gross abuse of authority, grave misconduct) complaints with the Office of the Ombudsman against Capt. Angelo Cuaresma, Ruben Alfaro, Jimmy Santana, “Jonathan,” and Maj. Darwin Sy/Reyes—without result.
Karapatan’s probe indicated AFP involvement and produced a “mission order” signed by Capt. Cuaresma addressed to CA Ruben Alfaro.
Petitioners sought a writ of amparo to halt all threats, compel the Ombudsman to file qualified kidnapping charges, recover damages, and require respondents to produce all related documents.

Procedural History Before the Court of Appeals

Petitioners filed their amparo petition with the Supreme Court on October 25, 2007.
Supreme Court issued the writ and referred the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) for summary hearing and appropriate action.
Respondents—President Arroyo; AFP Chief of Staff Gen. Esperon; PNP Chief Avelino Razon; Police officers Roquero and Gomez; and the Ombudsman—filed a joint return denying material averments and asserting general defenses: presidential immunity and petition defects under Sec. 5(d)–(e) of the Amparo Rule.
Petitioners moved for ex parte evidence, service by publication, and a Temporary Protection Order (TPO).
CA served the petition on Sy/Reyes, Santana, Alfaro, Cuaresma, and Jonathan; dropped President Arroyo; denied the TPO for want of authority; and denied notice by publication for lack of supporting affidavit.
On July 31, 2008, CA rendered partial judgment dismissing the petition as to Gen. Esperon, P/Dir. Gen. Razon, P/Supt. Roquero, P/Sr. Ins